Proposed Resolution to Rel 63, 64, 65, 89, 90, 91

[Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>]

 From Issues Rel 63, 64, 65, 89, 90, 91:

*REL-63* Spec feature Design Active

*Title:* Meet *Usage of WSDL 1.1 One-Way ops, R3.2* requirement

*Description:* The Specification must support services with WSDL 1.1 
One-Way operations.

*REL-64* Spec feature Design Active

*Title:* Meet *Usage of WSDL 1.1 req/resp ops, R3.3* requirement

*Description:* The Specification must support services with WSDL 1.1 
Request-Respose operations.

*REL-65* Spec feature Design Active

*Title:* Meet *Response RM-Reply Pattern req/resp, R3.4* requirement

*Description:* The Specification must support the Response RM-Reply 
Pattern for WSDL 1.1 Request-Response operations.

*REL-89* Spec feature Design Active

*Title:* Meet *Response RM-Reply Pattern one way, R3.5* requirement

*Description:* The Specification must support the Callback RM-Reply 
Pattern for WSDL 1.1 One-Way operations. **

* *

*REL-90* Spec feature Design Active

*Title:* Meet *Polling RM-Reply Pattern one way, R3.6* requirement 
*Description:* The Specification must support the Polling RM-Reply 
Pattern for WSDL 1.1 One-Way operations.

*REL-91* Spec feature Design Active

*Title:* Meet *Polling RM-Reply Pattern req/resp, R3.7* requirement

*Description:* The Specification must support the Polling RM-Reply 
Pattern for WSDL 1.1 Request-Reply operations.

-----------------

Rel 91 is not associated with a requirement, since there is no R3.7. 
Thus it must be closed as not needed.

The requirement to support: Response RM-Reply pattern for WSDL 
Request-Response operations is partially covered by the WS-Reliability 
protocol in its current form. The current protocol has features to 
satisfy all three of the reliability Qos requirements (GD, DE, OD) for 
the request message of the Request-Response operation.

Since Piggybacking is allowed in the protocol (or not disallowed) the 
current protocol can support duplicate elimination feature for the 
response, since this does not require an ack for the response.

We agreed at the South San Francisco F2F to not support Guaranteed 
Delivery (and thus not supporting Ordered Delivery) for the response 
message of the request response operation, at least for the first 
version of the protocol.

The requirement to support callback and poll RM-Reply patterns for 
One-way wsdl operations is met by the current protocol.

The protocol does not support (and there is no requirement to do so) 
mapping a wsdl 1.1 one-way operation onto the response RM-Reply pattern, 
since this disobeys the WS-I BP 1.0. However, the protocol should not 
require the Receiver RMP to detect that a one-way request has 
erroneously been sent with the response RM-Reply parameter set, since it 
should not require knowledge of the WSDL to operate. That it, if the 
sender erroneously sends a one way wsdl operation with the response 
reply pattern set, then the Receiving RMP may send an HTTP response with 
a soap envelope, in violation of the profile.

Thus I propose we close all these issues, since the protocol meets the 
requirements stated.

We should also add support for reliable response in WSDL request 
response operations to a future version “wish list”.


-- 
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutt		email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@fsw.fujitsu.com
Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133